f 


■ 


I 


RECENT  TENDENCIES  IN  MUNICIPAL 

LEGISLATION 


r  I  w I  is li  i 


•D.EG  &  1919 


BY  HORACE  E.  FLACK 

Executive  of  the  Department  of  Legislative  Reference,  Baltimore,  Md. 


Reprinted  from  the  Proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science  Association,  1910. 


Reprinted  from  Proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science  Association,  1910 


RECENT  TENDENCIES  IN  MUNICIPAL  LEGISLATION 

BY  HORACE  E.  FLACK 

Executive  of  the  Department  of  Legislative  Reference ,  Baltimore,  Md. 

The  time  allotted  for  this  paper  will  permit  only  a  brief  statement  of 
the  tendencies  manifested  in  recent  municipal  legislation.  For  this 
purpose,  it  may  be  well  at  the  outset  to  state  the  classes  of  municipal 
legislation.  In  the  first  place,  there  are  the  constitutional  provisions 
relating  to  cities  which  determine  the  general  powers  to  be  exercised 
by  the  legislatures  and  the  cities  respectively.  Next  in  order  of  rank 
are  the  municipal  codes  and  special  charters  passed  by  the  legisla¬ 
tures  and  the  charters  framed  and  adopted  by  the  cities  themselves. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  paper,  it  also  seems  well  to  consider  briefly 
the  methods  of  formulating  and  enacting  municipal  legislation,  to  be 
followed  by  a  consideration  of  the  substantive  changes  in  the  organ¬ 
ization  of  municipal  government. 

Notwithstanding  the  numerous  constitutional  provisions  prohib¬ 
iting  or  restricting  special  legislation,  municipal  government  has  been 
in  the  main  regulated  by  special  acts  of  the  legislatures  and  is  even 
to-day,  though  to  a  less  extent  than  formerly,  determined  by  special 
charters  or  acts.  In  many  cases  where  general  laws  governing 
cities  were  required,  legislation  for  all  cities  of  importance  was  in 
practice,  by  the  device  of  classification,  applied  to  individual  cities. 
This  method  also  resulted  in  frequent  and  often  arbitrary  changes. 

Prior  to  1900,  only  four  States  had  constitutional  provisions  author¬ 
izing  cities  of  a  specified  population  to  frame  and  adopt  their  own 
charters,  these  States  being  Missouri,  California,  Washington  and 
Minnesota.  It  is  fitting  that  here  in  St.  Louis,  a  city  which  has  had 
a  very  fair  degree  of  home  rule  under  the  earliest  constitutional  pro¬ 
vision  guaranteeing  self-government  in  almost  all  purely  local  matters, 
a  resum4  of  the  progress  made  along  this  line  should  be  given.  To 
show  that  the  tendency  is  very  strong  towards  these  home  rule  pro¬ 
visions,  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  as  many  States  have  incor¬ 
porated  these  provisions  in  their  constitutions  within  the  past  eight 

117 


118 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


years  as  had  been  incorporated  in  all  the  previous  history  of  the  coun¬ 
try.  Colorado  incorporated  such  provisions  in  1902;  Oregon  in  1906, 
Oklahoma  in  1907,  and  Michigan  in  1908.  The  Constitutional  Con¬ 
vention  of  the  Territory  of  Arizona  has  included  such  a  provision  in 
the  constitution  to  be  voted  upon  in  the  coming  February.  The  most 
significant  of  these  provisions  is  that  of  Michigan,  since  it  shows  that 
the  idea  of  home  rule  is  spreading  eastward.  Michigan  is  the  first 
State  east  of  the  Mississippi  to  adopt  such  a  provision  and  the  growth 
of  the  idea  indicates  that  it  will  be  only  a  question  of  time  until  other 
eastern  States  will  either  adopt  such  provisions  in  their  constitutions 
or  will  enact  legislation  along  these  lines. 

The  differences  in  detail  to  be  found  in  the  several  constitutions 
providing  for  home  rule  charters  cannot  be  discussed  in  this  brief 
summary,  but  since  Michigan  is  the  first  State  east  of  the  Mississippi 
to  adopt  this  method  of  municipal  legislation,  it  may  be  well  to  add  a 
few  words  in  regard  to  the  provisions  of  her  revised  constitution.  It 
is  distinctly  recognized  in  the  Michigan  constitution  that  city  charters 
shall  be  subject  to  the  general  laws  of  the  State,  and  it  is  made  the 
duty  of  the  legislature  to  prescribe  the  detailed  method  for  the  fram¬ 
ing  and  adoption  of  charters  by  the  electors  of  the  several  cities  and 
villages. 

The  first  legislature  under  the  revised  constitution  passed  an  Act 
(ch.  279,  1909)  prescribing  the  methods  of  framing  and  adopting 
charters  as  well  as  some  of  the  general  provisions  which  must  be  in¬ 
cluded  in  all  charters.  The  restrictions  placed  on  the  cities  are  few 
and  leave  the  cities  to  govern  themselves  as  they  see  fit  in  respect 
to  nearly  all  matters  of  local  concern.  The  cities  are  thus  at  liberty 
to  adopt  the  commission  form  of  government  or  any  other  form  so 
long  as  there  is  a  mayor  as  the  executive  head  and  a  body  vested  with 
legislative  power.  The  cities  with  a  population  of  25,000  or  over  may 
own  and  operate  transportation  facilities  within  their  limits  and  any 
city  may  purchase  private  property  for  any  public  use  or  purpose 
within  the  scope  of  its  powers.  Furthermore,  any  city  or  village  is 
empowered  to  own  and  operate,  within  or  without  its  corporate  lim¬ 
its,  public  utilities  for  supplying  water,  light,  heat  or  power.  All 
cities  are  given  the  power  to  alter,  amend  or  repeal  any  special  act 
affecting  any  existing  municipal  department.  Each  city  in  its  charter 
may  provide  for  a  system  of  civil  service  and  for  the  exercise  of  all 
municipal  powers  in  the  administration  of  its  government,  whether 
such  powers  be  expressly  enumerated  or  not,  and  through  its  regularly 


AMERICAN  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  ASSOCIATION 


119 


constituted  authorities  pass  all  laws  and  ordinances  relating  to  munici¬ 
pal  concerns,  subject  only  to  the  constitution  and  general  laws  of  the 
State. 

The  constitution  also  prescribes  that  the  legislature  shall  pass  no 
special  or  local  act  where  a  general  act  can  be  made  applicable,  and 
this  question  is  made  one  for  judicial  construction;  and  it  is  further 
provided  that  no  local  or  special  act  shall  take  effect  until  approved 
by  a  majority  of  the  electors  voting  in  the  district  to  be  affected. 

The  municipal  code  of  Ohio  adopted  in  1902  was  regarded  as  quite 
unsatisfactory,  since  it  was  a  combination  of  the  methods  devised  for 
the  smaller  towns  and  the  old  special  charter  of  Cincinnati.  Under 
the  former  conditions,  the  legislature  determined  for  nearly  every 
city  what  officers  they  should  elect,  what  salaries  should  be  paid, 
what  streets  should  be  opened,  the  tax  limit,  bonds  to  be  issued,  and 
what  power  each  and  every  department  of  the  government  should 
exercise.  In  fact,  the  legislature  had  usurped  completely  the  duties 
of  local  councils  and  home  rule  did  not  exist.  The  code  of  1902  was 
not  a  great  improvement  on  the  conditions  existing  at  the  time.  It 
was  soon  realized  that  the  code  of  1902  made  it  impossible  to  secure 
a  business-like  or  satisfactory  government.  Dr.  Wilcox  has  char¬ 
acterized  it  as  “the  most  striking  example  of  deliberate  dissipation 
of  responsibility  to  be  found.” 

Efforts  were  made  from  time  to  time  to  amend  the  code  of  1902 
in  a  radical  manner,  but  not  until  the  spring  of  1908  did  success  crown 
the  efforts  of  those  seeking  to  improve  the  municipal  legislation  of  the 
State.  The  so-called  Paine  Law  of  1908  is  not  in  itself  a  complete 
code  or  charter  but  merely  adds  amendments  to  the  code  of  1902. 
By  these  amendments,  the  boards  of  public  safety  and  public  service 
are  abolished  and  single  directors  substituted  in  their  place.  The 
appointment  of  these  directors  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  mayor. 
Thus,  for  the  first  time  the  responsibility  for  the  conduct  of  these  two 
principal  departments  is  placed  on  the  shoulders  of  the  mayor.  He 
has  the  power  to  remove  the  directors  or  the  heads  of  the  sub-depart¬ 
ments  at  pleasure.  The  director  of  public  safety  is  the  chief  admin¬ 
istrative  authority  of  the  fire,  police,  charity,  correction,  and  build¬ 
ing  departments.  The  director  of  public  service  is  charged  with  the 
supervision  of  the  improvement  and  repair  of  streets  and  other  pub¬ 
lic  ways;  the  lighting,  sprinkling  and  cleaning  of  all  public  places  and 
the  construction  of  all  public  improvements  and  public  works.  Upon 
him  is  also  imposed  the  management  of  municipal  water,  lighting, 


120 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


heating,  sewer  and  garbage  plants  and  other  undertakings  of  the  city. 
In  addition  to  these,  he  has  supervision  of  the  baths,  playgrounds, 
and  public  buildings,  and  he  is  given  authority  to  establish  such  sub¬ 
departments  and  to  determine  the  number  of  officers,  engineers,  etc. 
as  may  be  necessary  for  the  performance  of  the  duties  imposed  upon 
him. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  departments  of  public  safety  and  public 
service  embrace  nearly  all  the  departments  of  the  city  governments. 
In  short,  the  recent  Ohio  legislation  is  a  modification  of  the  so-called 
federal  system  in  that  it  seeks  to  fix  responsibility  and  produce  unity 
in  the  administration  of  city  government.  The  two  directors  and  the 
mayor  constitute  the  board  of  control,  and  to  this  board  must  come 
every  contract  which  calls  for  an  expenditure  of  more  than  $500  and 
upon  it  rests  the  duty  of  preparing  the  principal  estimates  of  revenues 
and  expenditures  upon  which  the  mayor  must  base  his  budget. 
The  Paine  Law  centralized  administrative  power,  simplified  the  gov¬ 
ernmental  machinery,  and  made  it  possible  to  locate  responsibility. 
The  mayor  has  become  actually,  not  figuratively,  the  responsible 
head  of  the  administrative  departments  in  the  city  government.  It 
seems  of  sufficient  importance  to  add  that  by  this  law,  for  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  Ohio,  a  general  merit  system  has  been  intro¬ 
duced  into  the  government  of  its  cities. 

There  are  apparently  two  reasons  or  motives  which  are  aiding  in  the 
extension  of  the  principle  of  home  rule  for  cities.  The  first  one,  the 
time  required  by  the  legislature  in  passing  and  amending  special  char¬ 
ters,  is  probably  the  most  potent  one ;  the  second  reason  is  the  demand 
on  the  part  of  the  cities  and  the  recognition  on  the  part  of  the  rest  of 
the  State  of  the  justice  of  the  demand  that  the  cities  be  given  the  power 
to  act  for  themselves  in  purely  local  matters.  The  legislature  of 
West  Virginia  recognized  the  weight  of  the  first  reason  as  shown  by 
the  following  resolution  adopted  at  its  last  session: 

Whereas,  A  great  portion  of  the  time  of  the  Legislature  of  West 
Virginia  is  occupied  in  considering  and  passing  bills  incorporating 
municipalities  within  said  state,  and  making  changes  in  charters  here¬ 
tofore  granted,  and 

Whereas,  The  time  so  employed  could  be  profitably  spent  in  the 
consideration  of  legislation  affecting  the  interests  of  the  people  of 
said  state  as  a  whole,  it  is  hereby 

Resolved  by  the  Legislature  of  West  Virginia:  That  the  Governor 
of  said  state  be,  and  he  is  hereby  authorized  and  empowered,  within 
sixty  days  from  the  date  of  the  adjournment  of  the  present  session 


AMERICAN  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  ASSOCIATION 


121 


of  said  legislature,  to  appoint  a  committee  consisting  of  three  to  pre¬ 
pare  a  municipal  code  for  the  State  of  West  Virginia,  which  said 
committee  shall  report  the  result  of  its  work  to  the  next  regular  ses¬ 
sion  of  the  Legislature,  or  to  the  Governor,  if  sooner  completed. 

As  a  result  of  this  resolution,  a  commission  was  appointed  and  the 
report  recently  issued  by  it  calls  particular  attention  to  the  loss  of 
time  and  the  great  expense  involved  in  the  special  legislation  for 
cities,  it  being  estimated  that  this  alone  costs  $30,000  at  each  session 
of  the  legislature.  The  commission  also  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  special  charters  are  generally  ill-considered  and  that  the  consider¬ 
ation  of  them  impedes  other  important  legislation.  In  fact,  it  is 
cited  that,  in  self  defense,  the  legislature  passed  the  resolution  with 
the  view  of  securing  a  general  act  for  the  government  of  all  the  cities 
and  towns  of  the  State.  After  a  thorough  investigation,  the  com¬ 
mission  submitted  a  plan  embodying  the  following  features : 

1.  Charters,  and  amendments  thereto,  may  be  procured  without 
special  acts  of  the  legislature. 

2.  A  wholesome  amount  of  home  rule  is  provided. 

3.  Certain  general  provisions  are  made  applicable  to  all  cities  of 
the  same  class. 

There  is  submitted  with  the  report  the  draft  of  a  general  law  for 
all  cities  of  each  class  and  a  proposed  charter  which  embodies  many 
features  of  commission  government,  but  each  city  is  given  power  to 
change  the  charter  to  conform  to  its  wishes,  provided  such  change 
does  not  conflict  with  the  general  provisions  applicable  to  all  cities 
in  its  class.  By  this  means  each  city  can  practically  provide  for  its 
own  form  of  government.  Even  the  form  of  charter  proposed  does 
not  go  into  small  detail,  but  contains  general  provisions  only,  leaving 
the  details  to  be  provided  by  ordinances.  If  the  report  of  the  com¬ 
mission  is  accepted  the  cities  of  West  Virginia  will  be  able  to  provide 
for  the  commission  plan  of  government,  the  initiative  and  referendum, 
civil  service,  non-partisan  primary  and  elections,  etc.,  for  it  is  stated 
that  the  principle  of  home  rule  should  permit  the  people  of  any  city 
to  govern  themselves  in  these  respects  as  they  desire. 

Although  the  legislation  recommended  by  the  commission,  even  if 
adopted,  will  not  be  as  effective,  since  not  so  permanent,  as  the  pro¬ 
visions  in  the  Michigan  constitution,  it  is  nevertheless  very  note¬ 
worthy  as  showing  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  home  rule  in  the  eastern 
States.  The  report  also  states  that  it  has  drafted  the  proposed  legis¬ 
lation  so  as  to  concentrate  power  and  fix  responsibility. 


122 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


The  Charter  Commission  of  New  York  appointed  by  Governor 
Hughes  in  1907  considered  what  the  relation  between  the  city  and 
State  should  be,  as  well  as  the  question  of  the  centralization  or  diffu¬ 
sion  of  the  powers  exercised  by  the  city.  In  regard  to  the  former,  the 
commission  had  the  following  to  say:  “A  virile  municipality,  once 
endowed  by  a  proper  measure  of  self-government,  should  settle  for 
itself  questions  which  in  their  relation  to  the  State  as  a  whole,  were 
distinctly  local.”  As  to  the  second  question,  the  commission  sug¬ 
gested  a  greater  degree  of  centralization  in  city  government. 

Another  tendency  to  be  noted  has  already  been  mentioned  in  con¬ 
nection  with  home  rule;  namely,  the  concentration  of  power  and  the 
location  of  responsibility.  This  tendency  is  to  be  observed  not  only 
in  the  cities  under  the  commission  form  of  government,  but  in  cities 
which  retain  the  legislative  department  as  a  distinct  and  separate 
branch  of  the  city  government.  This  is  to  be  noted  particularly  in 
Cleveland  and  other  Ohio  cities  under  the  “  Paine  Law”  of  1908, 
Boston,  the  cities  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Indiana,  and  in  the  proposed 
legislation  recommended  by  the  Municipal  Commission  of  West 
Virginia. 

Another  development  has  been  the  reduction  in  the  size  of  legisla¬ 
tive  bodies  and  the  tendency  to  abolish  ward  lines.  In  this  connec¬ 
tion,  it  is  also  well  to  notice  the  general  tendency  to  substitute  a  uni¬ 
cameral  for  the  bicameral  council.  This  has  been  done  quite  recently 
in  Boston,  and  in  nearly  every  case  of  charter  revision  within  the  past 
few  years,  this  has  either  been  done  or  recommended.  The  Board 
of  Freeholders  of  St.  Louis  has  recommended  the  change  from  a  bi¬ 
cameral  to  a  unicameral  system.  The  proposed  charter  for  Balti¬ 
more  also  provides  for  a  unicameral  council.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  commission  plan  of  government 
also  provides  for  a  small  legislative  body  elected  at  large. 

The  growth  of  the  idea  of  non-partisan  primaries  and  elections  is 
worthy  of  note.  This  principle  has  not  been  confined  to  small  cities 
under  the  commission  plan,  but  it  is  to  be  found  in  Boston,  Spokane, 
and  only  during  the  past  month  has  San  Francisco  been  added  to  the 
list.  Non-partisan  elections  are  not  to  be  found  in  all  commission 
government  cities,  but  the  more  recent  of  these  charters  provide  for 
them,  especially  those  modeled  after  the  so-called  Des  Moines  plan. 
In  some  of  the  cities,  nominations  are  made  by  petition,  as  in  Boston, 
while  in  others,  as  in  Des  Moines  and  San  Francisco,  they  are  made  in 
non-partisan  primaries.  The  chief  feature  is  that  there  is  nothing 


AMERICAN  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  ASSOCIATION 


123 


on  the  ballot  to  indicate  the  source  of  the  nomination  or  the  party 
affiliation  of  the  candidates.  In  San  Francisco,  provision  is  made  to 
the  effect  that  if  any  candidate  at  the  primary  receives  a  majority 
of  the  votes  cast,  he  shall  be  declared  elected,  thus  avoiding  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  any  further  election  for  that  office.  Preferential  voting  has 
been  incorporated  in  the  charter  of  Grand  Junction,  Colorado,  and 
this  is,  I  believe,  the  first  time  this  principle  has  been  adopted  in  any 
city  or  State  in  this  country.  Under  this  system,  opportunity  is 
given  the  voter  to  record  his  first,  second  and  third  choices.  Only 
one  election  has  been  held  under  its  provisions  and  the  notices  of  the 
result  have  been  favorable. 

At  present  much  attention  is  being  given  to  what  is  known  as  the 
“  Short  Ballot”  movement.  There  is  an  organization  for  the  purpose 
of  promoting  this  idea  and  it  seems  to  be  making  rapid  headway.  The 
short  ballot  is  secured  in  cities  with  commission  government,  but  it  is 
not  confined  to  this  class  of  cities.  Under  the  present  charter  of 
Boston,  there  will  ordinarily  be  only  about  five  candidates  to  be  voted 
for,  and  this  is  quite  a  contrast  to  the  ballot  to  be  found  in  a  large 
number  of  cities. 

The  extension  of  the  merit  system  has  made  great  progress  during 
the  last  few  years.  Mention  has  already  been  made  of  the  provision 
applying  to  all  Ohio  cities,  and  it  may  be  added  that  it  is  to  be  found 
in  nearly  all  commission  government  cities.  The  new  charter  of 
Kansas  City,  Mo.,  provides  for  it  and  it  is  incorporated  in  the  pro¬ 
posed  new  charter  of  St.  Louis.  The  Charter  Revision  Commission 
of  Baltimore  included  it  in  the  proposed  charter  there,  but  the  charter 
failed  to  pass  the  legislature.  Philadelphia  has  had  the  merit  system 
since  1906,  and  there  has  not  been  a  case  of  charter  revision  in  any 
large  city  during  the  past  three  or  four  years  in  which  provision  has 
not  been  made  for  it. 

A  very  rapid  and  striking  development  in  municipal  legislation 
during  recent  years  is  that  in  regard  to  what  is  known  as  the  com¬ 
mission  plan  of  government.  Starting  with  Galvestion  in  1901,  the 
plan  has  spread  until  to-day  at  least  one  hundred  cities  and  towns  are 
governed  by  it.  Most  of  these  have  adopted  it  during  the  past  two 
or  three  years,  and  the  question  is  being  agitated  in  a  number  of  places. 
Memphis,  Tennessee,  is  the  largest  city  which  has  thus  far  adopted 
this  plan.  A  campaign  is  at  present  being  waged  in  Buffalo  for  it, 
but  the  outcome  is  uncertain. 

A  feature  which  is  to  be  found  in  many  of  the  commission  plan 


124 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


cities,  but  to  be  found  in  other  cities  as  well,  is  that  providing  for 
the  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall.  The  progress  of  these  ideas 
has  also  been  very  remarkable.  Provisions  for  these  are  to  be  found 
in  a  number  of  western  cities.  Los  Angeles  has  had  them  for  a  num¬ 
ber  of  years,  and  San  Francisco  has  just  recently  adopted  a  charter 
amendment  containing  the  same  features.  Several  cities  have  the 
initiative  and  referendum  provisions  without  the  recall,  but  the  ten¬ 
dency  now  seems  to  be  to  include  all  three.  Boston  has  a  provision 
making  it  possible  to  recall  the  mayor  at  the  end  of  two  years,  but 
has  no  provision  for  the  initiative  and  referendum.  Through  these 
provisions,  greater  and  more  effective  popular  control  over  legisla¬ 
tion  is  secured. 

The  question  of  excess  condemnation  by  cities  is  receiving  consider¬ 
able  attention,  but  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn,  there  has  re¬ 
cently  been  only  one  piece  of  legislation  on  this  subject.  Baltimore, 
by  an  act  of  the  legislature  of  Maryland  in  1908,  was  given  the  power 
to  condemn  more  land  than  was  necessary  for  any  parkway,  boule¬ 
vard,  park,  public  building,  etc.,  and  to  sell  thereafter  such  excess, 
thereby  enabling  the  city  to  get  the  increment  added  to  the  value 
of  the  land  by  the  public  improvement.  Boston  is  now  trying  to 
secure  this  power,  and  it  is  likely  that  other  cities  will  also  eventually 
possess  it. 

Some  of  the  other  tendencies  which  it  is  not  possible  to  discuss  in 
this  paper  are  *the  substitution  of  single  responsible  heads  for  boards 
and  commissions,  longer  terms  for  officials,  giving  the  mayor  greater 
power  in  regard  to  the  appointment  and  removal  of  officials,  shorten¬ 
ing  the  terms  for  public  service  franchises  and  giving  the  people  greater 
power  in  the  granting  of  such  franchises. 

In  conclusion,  the  recent  tendencies  in  municipal  legislation  may 
be  summarized  as  follows: 

1.  The  extension  of  home  rule. 

2.  The  concentration  of  power  and  the  location  of  responsibility. 

3.  The  extension  of  the  merit  system  of  appointment  for  subordi¬ 
nate  positions. 

4.  Smaller  legislative  bodies  and  the  substitution  of  a  unicameral 
for  the  bicameral  council,  with  either  the  abolition  of  ward  lines  or 
a  widening  of  election  districts. 

5.  Non-partisan  nominations  and  elections. 

6.  A  short  ballot. 

7.  Commission  plan  of  government. 


AMERICAN  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  ASSOCIATION 


125 


8.  Greater  and  more  effective  popular  control  over  legislation 
through  the  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall. 

9.  Longer  terms  for  officials,  with  greater  power  as  to  appointment 
and  removal  of  officials  by  the  mayor. 

10.  Shorter  term  for  public  service  franchises. 


I 


, 


v 


•vb-  ■ 


v-v. 


jim 


- 

. 

. 


:  4-  4 


•'....  / 


v  ; 


-  i  •  i  -  -  <  - 

. 


c  .  i '  -r  ‘  ■ 


{:  \  r 

^  -  ,  / 


■.b; 


/ 


n£'  •>  - 


1> 


Vr'/b' 

-v  •  '  - 

•  5  *■  u  I  t  •  •*»  . 


:  ■  ;v  ~ 
■->  *  •  !'V  ' 


■ 

■  •  i  "  v> 

,•  '•  /•  J 

. 

V 


■/  >  ■ 

•  '  ■  •  '''  •' 


4 


■ 


- 


4, 


. 


m: 


v-stoP.  i 

>V-"  *  h.v'- 


*  • 


V"*.  •  •  • 

\  ■  '  •  '  ■.  .  V-  ' 


■  <-• 


■*  -r 

V  '  ■ 

' 

■  V-  ’ v‘  •  ifV  ,.-b  ' 

■ 


* 


. 


I 


